Owen, This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times" and that we "continue to persist".
I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment in privately-owned networks will help. People cannot be made to adopt IPv6 (although IMO they should) and until they are ready to do so we must continue to support IPv4, for new and existing networks. While we can encourage and help people move towards IPv6 we can't force adoption through prevention of access to IPv4. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 4:23 AM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> Cc: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc>; North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 This gift from the bad idea fairy just keeps on giving. You’ve presented your case numerous times. The IETF has repeatedly found no consensus for it and yet you persist. Think how many more sites could have IPv6 capability already if this wasted effort had been put into that, instead. Owen On Feb 13, 2024, at 14:16, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: Hi Tom, We aren't trying to have a debate on this. All we can do is present our case, explain our reasons and hope that we can gain a consensus from the community. I understand that some peers don't like the idea of this happening and yes we understand the technical work behind getting this across the line. It's easy enough for us to say "this will never happen" or to put it into the "too hard" basket, however, the one thing I can guarantee is that will never happen, if nothing is done. Let's not think about ourselves for a moment, and think about the potential positive impact that this could bring. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 AM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> Cc: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>; aus...@lists.ausnog.net <aus...@lists.ausnog.net>; Christopher Hawker via sanog <sa...@sanog.org>; apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net <apnic-t...@lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: The Reg does 240/4 Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. It won't ever be 'accomplished' by trying to debate this in the media. On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:05 AM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au<mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.au>> wrote: Hello all, [Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.] Just to shed some light on the article and our involvement... Since September 1981, 240/4 has been reserved for future use, see https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml. This space has always been reserved for future use and given the global shortage of available space for new network operators we feel it is appropriate for this space to be reclassified as Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs on behalf of ICANN. At present, the IP space currently available for RIRs to delegate to new members is minimal, if any at all. The primary goal of our call for change is to afford smaller players who are wanting to enter the industry the opportunity to do so without having to shell out the big dollars for space. Although I do not agree with IP space being treated as a commodity (as this was not what it was intended to be), those who can afford to purchase space may do so and those who cannot should be able to obtain space from their respective RIR without having to wait over a year in some cases just to obtain space. It's not intended to flood the market with resources that can be sold off to the highest bidder, and this can very well be a way for network operators to plan to properly roll out IPv6. At this point in time, the uptake and implementation of IPv6 is far too low (only 37% according to https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6) for new networks to deploy IPv6 single-stack, meaning that we need to continue supporting IPv4 deployments. The reallocation of IPv4 space marked as Future Use would not restrict or inhibit the deployment of IPv6, if anything, in our view it will help the deployment through allowing these networks to service a greater number of customers than what a single /24 v4 prefix will allow. Entire regions of an economy have the potential to be serviced by a single /23 IPv4 prefix when used in conjunction with IPv6 space. Now, some have argued that we should not do anything with IPv4 and simply let it die out. IPv4 will be around for the foreseeable future and while it is, we need to allow new operators to continue deploying networks. It is unfair of us to say "Let's all move towards IPv6 and just let IPv4 die" however the reality of the situation is that while we continue to treat it as a commodity and allow v6 uptake to progress as slowly as it is, we need to continue supporting it v4. Some have also argued that networks use this space internally within their infrastructure. 240/4 was always marked as Reserved for Future Use and if network operators elect to squat on reserved space instead of electing to deploy v6 across their internal networks then that is an issue they need to resolve, and it should not affect how it is reallocated. It goes against the bottom-up approach of policy development by allowing larger network operators to state that this space cannot be made unicast because they are using it internally (even though it's not listed in RFC1918), and its reallocation would affect their networks. In the APNIC region, there is a policy which only allows for a maximum of a /23 IPv4 prefix to be allocated/assigned to new members and any more space required must be acquired through other means. If (as an example) APNIC were to receive 3 x /8 prefixes from the 240/4 space this would allow for delegations to be made for approximately the next ~50 years whereas if policy was changed to allow for delegations up to and including a /22 this would extend the current pool by well over 20 years, based on current exhaustion rates and allowing for pool levels to return to pre-2010 levels. Now, we know there's definitely going to be some pushback on this. This won't be easy to accomplish and it will take some time. However, if we do nothing then nothing will happen. The currently available pool has reached severe exhaustion levels yet we have a block representing about 6% of the total possible IP space which may not seem like a lot yet it can go a long way. This call for change is not about making space available for existing networks. It is about new networks emerging into and on the internet. While we do work towards IPv6 being the primary addressing method we need to continue allow those who may not be able to deploy IPv6 to connect to the internet. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin...@nanog.org<mailto:thesysadmin...@nanog.org>> on behalf of Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com<mailto:j...@baylink.com>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:19 PM To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: The Reg does 240/4 I know we had a thread on this last month, but I can't remember what it was titled. ElReg has done a civilian-level backgrounder on the 240/4 issue, for anyone who wants to read and scoff at it. :-) https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/240_4_ipv4_block_activism/ Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com<mailto:j...@baylink.com> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
